May 13: In the penalty box? Plus other letters to the editor

Bombardier has been accused by the World Bank of allegedly using corruption and collusion to win a rail-signalling contract in Azerbaijan.

ARND WIEGMANN/Reuters

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here:letters@globeandmail.com

1) The World Bank agreed in 2011 with the other four major international financing institutions (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Asia Development Bank, African Development Bank and Inter-American Development Bank) that each must recognize each other’s anti-corruption sanction regime – debarment. So, if sanctioned, Bombardier would be cut off from many markets, worldwide, respecting any project financed by any of them, and for as long as 10 years.

2) None of these “Big Five” banks need charge any company or individual with any crime, or prove any case in any court. They make their own rules for fighting corruption. Their sanction – debarment – is their own business.

3) Need an example? Consider SNC-Lavalin, previously debarred for 10 years by the Big Five for alleged corruption in Bangladesh and Cambodia. That’s in addition to current notorious criminal charges arising from its Libya adventures. (As we know, conviction for those would also cut it off from Canadian federal government projects for 10 years, under current procurement policies.)

Allegedly using government contracts as a way to garner votes; pursuing Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for two years with public funds, then dropping the case before an election … really?!

Another fine Canadian company – Bombardier – allegedly caught with its paws in the world’s piggy bank ... really?! (World Bank Accuses Bombardier Of Corruption, May 10).

Maybe Canadians need to hear it in language that’s easier to understand: We’re in the penalty box, kids. We’re not playing by the rules; bribing and cheating is bad (and nobody wants to play with people who think a little corruption here and there is okay). And if we’re in the box so often, we won’t win the game. There won’t be any free pizza and beer down at the local pub, and we will be sad.

Maybe we need to put on our big-kid pants, raise the bar a notch, and stop accepting the traditional, old-style politics with a roll of our eyes and a helpless shrug. Demand that our politicians earn our votes, our contracts – not buy them.

We’ll all be better for it. Really.

Christine Reissmann, Ottawa

Story continues below advertisement

Basic competence

A common thread in the stories behind so many of your headlines in recent months has been the failure of Canada’s public service and court systems to do what is needed in a timely fashion. Be it delayed trials, botched investigations, the implementation of software, the running of call centres, the provision of clean water to First Nations or thoughtful action with respect to foreign visitors, Canada fails.

Surely it is time for royal commissions to be established to see how basic competence can be restored. That would be a surprising and wonderful legacy for Justin Trudeau to offer the country at the end of his first term in office.

In the spirit of being mom

In the spirit of being a mother and giving so much of ourselves, I guess it is only fitting that we are asked to share again when it comes to our special calendar day.

Sarah Timney, Mississauga

Carbon: both/and

Re Why Progressives Should Reject The Carbon Tax (May 9): Paul Abela’s column falls into the trap of “either/or” thinking that has surely been shown by now to lead to further polarization and politicization of an issue – climate change – which should be neither.

It is not helpful to argue that a carbon tax is “regressive” and “reprehensible,” and that shifting the tax burden to the fossil fuel industry is the solution to paying for measures to address climate change. Of course a carbon emissions tax should be placed on the extraction and processing of fossil fuel, and the tax should be a high one.

Story continues below advertisement

So how about some “both/and” thinking here instead of “either/or” ? If I consume fossil fuels, I should pay for that consumption. If industry extracts or consumes carbon, it should pay for it, too.

Either/or posturing has led to failure after failure to address climate change. It could hardly make things worse to try another, more expansive and inclusive strategy.

Nancy Bjerring, London, Ont.

...................

Acadia University’s Paul Abela nailed it in his description of the difficulties with the carbon tax. It shifts the financial burden onto the shoulders of those who can least afford it.

Canada’s taxation regime has a checkered record. New forms of taxation have been promised to address one issue, but are then diverted to address other “priorities.” Income tax itself was originally imposed to assist with wartime costs in the Great War, and is now a permanent fixture. Tax revenue to a government is like heroin to an addict.

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.